Talk:Byrhtnoth

Untitled

Brihtnoth (b.951 d.991) was the husband of Aelfflaed, who was the sister of Aethelflaed and Aethelward, childred of Aeflgar and his wife Wiswide. In his will, Aelfgar left properties at Cockfield and Chelsworth, among others, to his daughter Aethelflaed, and on her death to the St Edmund's foundation. Aethelfflaed in her will left the property to her brother-in-law Brihtnoth and sister Aelfflaed, also with the stipulation that on their deaths the properties would go to the St. Edmund's foundation. After Brihtnoth's death in the Battle of Maldon in 991, his widow petitioned to have a tapestry prepared to honor him, as the later Bayeaux tapestry honored the Battle of Hastings. After the death of Aelfflaed, in accordance with her will, the properties were transferred to the St. Edmund's foundtion, about the year 1000 AD. Later, the abbot of Bury St. Edmund's granted land at Cockfield to Adam and Aethelic (a possible descendent of Brihtnoth and Aelfflaed) the first such grant to an Anglo Saxon after the Norman invasion. Adam took the surname Cockfield, establishing a noble family that survived for more than 400 years.

Peer review

Byrhtnoth

I've listed this article for peer review because... I have just pasted an overhauled version of the article, which I have been working on in my sandbox for a little over three weeks, somewhat intermittently. Two new images were also added to Wikimedia Commons for the article. The purpose of this expansion was that I felt that Byrhtnoth's fame meant his life deserved more elaboration, and the purpose of this review is to get the article to FA status. Thanks, Wombatmanboy (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I will take a look at this. A couple of minor points on the bibliography:

• The Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies is the first volume of a journal and you should use the cite journal template.
• Whitelock, English Historical Documents. You should specify 1st edition. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod is Stephen Pollington an RS? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, marginal at best, I'd say. But he is only being used to support one of a range of views, in a footnote. Maybe that's ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Eric John also makes the argument for a more professional and aristocratic fyrd in his Orbis Britanniae, should I cite him instead? Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

He is a much better source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright, fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is some confusion over the entry for Swanton, Anglo-Saxons Chronicles. Some editions were published with Chronicle in the title and some with Chronicles (plural). The entry is flagged with an error for missing publisher, so I checked the isbn on Worldcat. This is for publication by Routledge in New York as Chronicle, but you show it as London and Chronicles. Which edition are you using, original or revised, London or NY, Chronicle or Chronicles, which publisher? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The edition is specifically Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, London, published by J.M. Dent Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've corrected it Wombatmanboy (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Looks pretty good on a quick look. Personally I might move some of material in the long notes - especially g - into the text. I may return for a fuller look. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Do you think it might be too long for a note, or that its content might function better in the main article? Wombatmanboy (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  The latter. I hope g is in the article on the poem too. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Do you think the content of g would work best in the Sources section, or where the note currently is in the article? Wombatmanboy (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Magnate and soldier". "soldier" is unreferenced below and dubious. All magnates were expected to lead in battle. Did he serve as a soldier apart from that?

Removed "soldier". Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "he transferred his support to Eadwig's younger brother Edgar, who was ruling England north of the Thames". This implies a deliberate choice. All magnates north of the Thames served Edgar and south served Eadwig.

fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "prolific supporter of monasticism". prolific seems an odd word here. Maybe strong.

I would say his patronage qualifies as "prolific," particularly in light of how monks viewed him. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "against Ælfhere of Mercia, who took advantage of the power vacuum to attack monasteries and reclaim lost land". This is very controversial. Most historians now argue that all magnates supported monasteries allied to them and oppressed those allied to their opponents.

fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "becoming one of the king's main counsellors alongside Æthelwine after 984". This is dubious and not supported by the source cited below, Roach's biography. After Bishop Æthelwold's death in 984, Æthelred despoiled the church for several years. Byrhtnoth was the second most senior ealdorman, but he is unlikely to have supported the policy and was probably not influential in this period.

fixed, although Hart and Scragg characterise the two as influential before their deaths. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "He seems to have been greatly outnumbered, but the Norse were contained on a causeway, which Byrhtnoth's more professional troops could defend easily." "more professional" is ambiguous. The context implies that Byrhtnoth's troops were more professional than the Vikings, but it could mean the best of Byrhtnoth's troops.

fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "Norse" This word is commonly used by Anglo-Saxonists to mean Norwegian Vikings, and the invaders at Maldon are generally referred to as Vikings or Danes. I would not use the word "Norse".

fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "However, it seems to have criticised him for his decision to fight the Norse on equal terms" "it seems" is an odd construction. Maybe something like "the poem implies criticism".

fixed. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "later scholars have also been condemnatory". Some historians have defended his decision on the ground that allowing the Vikings to leave the island and meeting them in battle was the only hope of defeating them and stopping their depredations. I can try to track down the comments if you wish. Dudley Miles(talk) 19:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I was aware, although I have now included this argument in the main text and lead. Wombatmanboy (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• "Æthelwine probably just pursued his own interests". This is not the view of historians and is not supported by the sources you cite below. Miller states that Æthelwine was protecting his own interest in the context of suggesting that the 'anti-monastic reaction' represented efforts by magnates to recover lands seized from them by force by monasteries with the support of Edgar. Jayakumar suggests that Æthelwine favoured Ramsey over Ely (not that he favoured Ely in other instances as you say), and that he cooperated with his supposed enemy Æthelwold in founding religious houses. No historian denies that Æthelwine was a sincere supporter of monasticism.
• "becoming one of the king's main counsellors alongside Æthelwine after 984. Æthelwine's illness in 991 allowed Byrhtnoth to exercise viceregal authority over the kingdom" As I wrote above, "after 984" is dubious, and you cite Roach below as contradicting it. Hart does support it but he seems to be in a minority. Scragg does not say that Byrhtnoth exercised "viceregal authority over the kingdom", but that he was the king's viceroy at the Battle of Maldon. Abels says in his ODNB article that in 991 Byrhtnoth was probably the most influential layman after the king, and this is probably worth citing.
• "The leadership of Byrhtnoth and Æthelwine may have played a part in maintaining stability and defence." This is not supported by Abels, who is the leading authority of military matters in the period, in his ODNB article.
• "There are references to Byrhtnoth in monastic texts such as those from Ely and Ramsey, as well as the near-contemporary Byrhtferth of Ramsey, the author of the Vita Oswaldi, who wished to continue his legacy." The grammar seems to get lost here.
• "with the year 1000 being accepted as the latest possible date". This is contradicted in the following text.

I'm in the middle of addressing these comments, but I don't notice a contradiction? Wombatmanboy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

You say that 1000 is the latest date and then mention dates which are all later than 1000. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Those were arguments for a later date than previously thought. I think I've made that clearer in the text now. Wombatmanboy (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• "Commentators have been traditionally more trusting of the poem". More trusting than whom? You have not previously discussed the question. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
• Byrhtnoth 6 ft 9 in tall. This 1769 estimate is not now accepted. The ref (wrongly shown as p. 9 instead of 57-58), cites a modern estimate in Scragg ed. Battle of Maldon, pp. 289-93. This is a little over 6 ft, presumably very little over as it is described as 9 inches less than the 1769 estimate. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)